Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 671 | control, N = 341 | treatment, N = 331 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 67 | 50.77 ± 12.88 (25 - 74) | 50.17 ± 13.49 (25 - 74) | 51.38 ± 12.40 (31 - 72) | 0.705 |
gender | 67 | 0.856 | |||
f | 46 (69%) | 23 (68%) | 23 (70%) | ||
m | 21 (31%) | 11 (32%) | 10 (30%) | ||
occupation | 67 | 0.922 | |||
day_training | 1 (1.5%) | 1 (2.9%) | 0 (0%) | ||
full_time | 6 (9.0%) | 4 (12%) | 2 (6.1%) | ||
homemaker | 6 (9.0%) | 3 (8.8%) | 3 (9.1%) | ||
other | 2 (3.0%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (6.1%) | ||
part_time | 11 (16%) | 5 (15%) | 6 (18%) | ||
retired | 15 (22%) | 7 (21%) | 8 (24%) | ||
self_employ | 2 (3.0%) | 1 (2.9%) | 1 (3.0%) | ||
student | 1 (1.5%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (3.0%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (3.0%) | 1 (2.9%) | 1 (3.0%) | ||
unemploy | 21 (31%) | 12 (35%) | 9 (27%) | ||
marital | 67 | >0.999 | |||
cohabitation | 1 (1.5%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (3.0%) | ||
divore | 7 (10%) | 4 (12%) | 3 (9.1%) | ||
married | 14 (21%) | 7 (21%) | 7 (21%) | ||
none | 39 (58%) | 20 (59%) | 19 (58%) | ||
seperation | 3 (4.5%) | 2 (5.9%) | 1 (3.0%) | ||
widow | 3 (4.5%) | 1 (2.9%) | 2 (6.1%) | ||
edu | 67 | 0.997 | |||
bachelor | 19 (28%) | 9 (26%) | 10 (30%) | ||
diploma | 12 (18%) | 7 (21%) | 5 (15%) | ||
hd_ad | 3 (4.5%) | 2 (5.9%) | 1 (3.0%) | ||
postgraduate | 6 (9.0%) | 3 (8.8%) | 3 (9.1%) | ||
primary | 5 (7.5%) | 2 (5.9%) | 3 (9.1%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 6 (9.0%) | 3 (8.8%) | 3 (9.1%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 14 (21%) | 7 (21%) | 7 (21%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 2 (3.0%) | 1 (2.9%) | 1 (3.0%) | ||
fam_income | 67 | 0.822 | |||
10001_12000 | 4 (6.0%) | 1 (2.9%) | 3 (9.1%) | ||
12001_14000 | 4 (6.0%) | 2 (5.9%) | 2 (6.1%) | ||
14001_16000 | 5 (7.5%) | 2 (5.9%) | 3 (9.1%) | ||
16001_18000 | 2 (3.0%) | 1 (2.9%) | 1 (3.0%) | ||
18001_20000 | 3 (4.5%) | 3 (8.8%) | 0 (0%) | ||
20001_above | 10 (15%) | 6 (18%) | 4 (12%) | ||
2001_4000 | 9 (13%) | 6 (18%) | 3 (9.1%) | ||
4001_6000 | 9 (13%) | 4 (12%) | 5 (15%) | ||
6001_8000 | 6 (9.0%) | 3 (8.8%) | 3 (9.1%) | ||
8001_10000 | 6 (9.0%) | 2 (5.9%) | 4 (12%) | ||
below_2000 | 9 (13%) | 4 (12%) | 5 (15%) | ||
medication | 67 | 57 (85%) | 30 (88%) | 27 (82%) | 0.512 |
onset_duration | 67 | 15.03 ± 11.66 (0 - 56) | 16.60 ± 12.84 (1 - 56) | 13.41 ± 10.23 (0 - 35) | 0.266 |
onset_age | 67 | 35.74 ± 14.16 (14 - 64) | 33.57 ± 12.91 (14 - 58) | 37.97 ± 15.21 (15 - 64) | 0.206 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 671 | control, N = 341 | treatment, N = 331 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 67 | 3.16 ± 1.25 (1 - 5) | 3.18 ± 1.29 (1 - 5) | 3.15 ± 1.23 (1 - 5) | 0.936 |
recovery_stage_b | 67 | 17.91 ± 2.65 (9 - 23) | 17.76 ± 2.69 (9 - 23) | 18.06 ± 2.65 (13 - 23) | 0.651 |
ras_confidence | 67 | 30.25 ± 4.80 (19 - 43) | 29.56 ± 4.19 (19 - 40) | 30.97 ± 5.33 (20 - 43) | 0.232 |
ras_willingness | 67 | 12.03 ± 1.96 (7 - 15) | 11.85 ± 1.84 (9 - 15) | 12.21 ± 2.09 (7 - 15) | 0.458 |
ras_goal | 67 | 17.48 ± 3.00 (12 - 24) | 17.41 ± 2.99 (12 - 24) | 17.55 ± 3.05 (12 - 24) | 0.857 |
ras_reliance | 67 | 13.19 ± 2.87 (8 - 20) | 12.88 ± 2.64 (8 - 18) | 13.52 ± 3.09 (8 - 20) | 0.370 |
ras_domination | 67 | 10.00 ± 2.21 (3 - 15) | 10.44 ± 1.99 (6 - 15) | 9.55 ± 2.36 (3 - 14) | 0.097 |
symptom | 67 | 30.48 ± 9.93 (14 - 56) | 31.26 ± 9.78 (14 - 52) | 29.67 ± 10.16 (15 - 56) | 0.514 |
slof_work | 67 | 22.33 ± 4.80 (10 - 30) | 22.32 ± 4.35 (15 - 30) | 22.33 ± 5.30 (10 - 30) | 0.993 |
slof_relationship | 67 | 25.54 ± 6.01 (11 - 35) | 25.09 ± 6.14 (13 - 35) | 26.00 ± 5.92 (11 - 35) | 0.539 |
satisfaction | 67 | 20.49 ± 6.87 (5 - 32) | 18.97 ± 6.50 (5 - 29) | 22.06 ± 6.98 (5 - 32) | 0.065 |
mhc_emotional | 67 | 11.16 ± 3.82 (3 - 18) | 10.74 ± 3.35 (3 - 17) | 11.61 ± 4.26 (4 - 18) | 0.355 |
mhc_social | 67 | 14.69 ± 5.16 (6 - 26) | 14.94 ± 5.01 (7 - 26) | 14.42 ± 5.37 (6 - 26) | 0.685 |
mhc_psychological | 67 | 22.01 ± 5.92 (6 - 36) | 21.53 ± 5.33 (10 - 33) | 22.52 ± 6.52 (6 - 36) | 0.500 |
resilisnce | 67 | 16.58 ± 4.62 (6 - 27) | 16.21 ± 4.42 (6 - 24) | 16.97 ± 4.86 (7 - 27) | 0.503 |
social_provision | 67 | 13.67 ± 3.00 (5 - 20) | 13.24 ± 2.59 (8 - 20) | 14.12 ± 3.34 (5 - 20) | 0.229 |
els_value_living | 67 | 17.25 ± 2.99 (5 - 25) | 16.62 ± 2.40 (12 - 22) | 17.91 ± 3.40 (5 - 25) | 0.077 |
els_life_fulfill | 67 | 12.79 ± 3.30 (4 - 20) | 11.79 ± 3.04 (5 - 17) | 13.82 ± 3.28 (4 - 20) | 0.011 |
els | 67 | 30.04 ± 5.62 (9 - 45) | 28.41 ± 4.45 (20 - 36) | 31.73 ± 6.25 (9 - 45) | 0.015 |
social_connect | 67 | 27.22 ± 9.24 (8 - 48) | 28.09 ± 8.11 (8 - 45) | 26.33 ± 10.33 (8 - 48) | 0.441 |
shs_agency | 67 | 14.34 ± 4.89 (3 - 24) | 13.68 ± 4.54 (3 - 21) | 15.03 ± 5.21 (3 - 24) | 0.260 |
shs_pathway | 67 | 16.57 ± 3.96 (4 - 24) | 16.09 ± 3.82 (8 - 24) | 17.06 ± 4.11 (4 - 23) | 0.319 |
shs | 67 | 30.91 ± 8.36 (7 - 47) | 29.76 ± 7.99 (13 - 45) | 32.09 ± 8.70 (7 - 47) | 0.258 |
esteem | 67 | 12.64 ± 1.46 (10 - 18) | 12.76 ± 1.50 (10 - 18) | 12.52 ± 1.44 (10 - 16) | 0.490 |
mlq_search | 67 | 14.88 ± 3.43 (3 - 21) | 14.85 ± 3.20 (6 - 21) | 14.91 ± 3.69 (3 - 21) | 0.947 |
mlq_presence | 67 | 13.46 ± 4.16 (3 - 21) | 13.38 ± 3.53 (5 - 20) | 13.55 ± 4.77 (3 - 21) | 0.874 |
mlq | 67 | 28.34 ± 6.79 (6 - 42) | 28.24 ± 6.03 (12 - 40) | 28.45 ± 7.60 (6 - 42) | 0.896 |
empower | 67 | 19.49 ± 4.17 (6 - 28) | 19.03 ± 3.84 (11 - 24) | 19.97 ± 4.49 (6 - 28) | 0.360 |
ismi_resistance | 67 | 14.58 ± 2.75 (5 - 20) | 14.26 ± 2.29 (11 - 19) | 14.91 ± 3.17 (5 - 20) | 0.342 |
ismi_discrimation | 67 | 11.39 ± 3.28 (5 - 19) | 12.38 ± 2.81 (5 - 18) | 10.36 ± 3.46 (5 - 19) | 0.011 |
sss_affective | 67 | 10.09 ± 3.88 (3 - 18) | 10.74 ± 3.41 (3 - 18) | 9.42 ± 4.27 (3 - 18) | 0.169 |
sss_behavior | 67 | 9.81 ± 4.01 (3 - 18) | 10.65 ± 3.91 (3 - 18) | 8.94 ± 3.99 (3 - 18) | 0.081 |
sss_cognitive | 67 | 8.34 ± 4.06 (3 - 18) | 8.79 ± 4.24 (3 - 18) | 7.88 ± 3.88 (3 - 18) | 0.360 |
sss | 67 | 28.24 ± 11.09 (9 - 54) | 30.18 ± 10.35 (9 - 54) | 26.24 ± 11.62 (9 - 54) | 0.148 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.18 | 0.212 | 2.76, 3.59 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.025 | 0.303 | -0.618, 0.568 | 0.934 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.311 | 0.341 | -0.357, 0.980 | 0.366 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.063 | 0.467 | -0.852, 0.978 | 0.893 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.8 | 0.470 | 16.8, 18.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.296 | 0.670 | -1.02, 1.61 | 0.660 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.061 | 0.686 | -1.41, 1.28 | 0.929 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.503 | 0.937 | -1.33, 2.34 | 0.594 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.6 | 0.868 | 27.9, 31.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.41 | 1.237 | -1.01, 3.84 | 0.258 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.559 | 0.983 | -1.37, 2.49 | 0.573 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.075 | 1.337 | -2.69, 2.55 | 0.956 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.9 | 0.343 | 11.2, 12.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.359 | 0.488 | -0.598, 1.32 | 0.464 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.821 | 0.358 | -1.52, -0.119 | 0.028 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.642 | 0.486 | -0.311, 1.60 | 0.195 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.036 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.4 | 0.548 | 16.3, 18.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.134 | 0.781 | -1.40, 1.67 | 0.865 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.832 | 0.626 | -2.06, 0.394 | 0.191 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.41 | 0.851 | -0.259, 3.08 | 0.106 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 12.9 | 0.483 | 11.9, 13.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.633 | 0.689 | -0.717, 1.98 | 0.361 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.274 | 0.464 | -0.635, 1.18 | 0.558 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.691 | 0.630 | -0.544, 1.93 | 0.280 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.038 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.4 | 0.378 | 9.70, 11.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.896 | 0.538 | -1.95, 0.159 | 0.100 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.448 | 0.536 | -1.50, 0.602 | 0.407 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.23 | 0.731 | -0.199, 2.67 | 0.099 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.030 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 31.3 | 1.711 | 27.9, 34.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.60 | 2.438 | -6.38, 3.18 | 0.514 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.842 | 1.268 | -3.33, 1.64 | 0.511 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.086 | 1.720 | -3.28, 3.46 | 0.960 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.3 | 0.832 | 20.7, 24.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.010 | 1.185 | -2.31, 2.33 | 0.993 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.100 | 0.704 | -1.48, 1.28 | 0.887 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.22 | 0.955 | -3.10, 0.649 | 0.209 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 25.1 | 1.026 | 23.1, 27.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.912 | 1.462 | -1.95, 3.78 | 0.535 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.14 | 1.007 | -3.11, 0.833 | 0.265 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.479 | 1.367 | -2.20, 3.16 | 0.728 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.0 | 1.199 | 16.6, 21.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 3.09 | 1.709 | -0.260, 6.44 | 0.075 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.02 | 1.387 | -1.70, 3.74 | 0.468 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.86 | 1.887 | -5.56, 1.84 | 0.330 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.034 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.7 | 0.651 | 9.46, 12.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.871 | 0.927 | -0.947, 2.69 | 0.351 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.772 | 0.638 | -0.479, 2.02 | 0.235 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.37 | 0.867 | -3.07, 0.331 | 0.124 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 14.9 | 0.921 | 13.1, 16.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.517 | 1.313 | -3.09, 2.06 | 0.695 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.22 | 1.069 | -0.878, 3.31 | 0.262 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.44 | 1.453 | -4.29, 1.41 | 0.328 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.5 | 1.069 | 19.4, 23.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.986 | 1.524 | -2.00, 3.97 | 0.520 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.00 | 1.180 | -1.31, 3.31 | 0.402 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.21 | 1.604 | -5.36, 0.933 | 0.176 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.2 | 0.764 | 14.7, 17.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.764 | 1.089 | -1.37, 2.90 | 0.485 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.558 | 0.756 | -0.925, 2.04 | 0.466 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.103 | 1.027 | -1.91, 2.12 | 0.921 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.502 | 12.3, 14.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.886 | 0.716 | -0.517, 2.29 | 0.219 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.380 | 0.573 | -1.50, 0.742 | 0.511 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.179 | 0.779 | -1.35, 1.71 | 0.820 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.027 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.6 | 0.505 | 15.6, 17.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.29 | 0.720 | -0.119, 2.70 | 0.077 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.649 | 0.548 | -0.424, 1.72 | 0.243 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.574 | 0.744 | -2.03, 0.885 | 0.445 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.040 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 11.8 | 0.527 | 10.8, 12.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.02 | 0.751 | 0.552, 3.50 | 0.009 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.12 | 0.575 | -0.002, 2.25 | 0.058 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.922 | 0.781 | -2.45, 0.609 | 0.246 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.088 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 28.4 | 0.921 | 26.6, 30.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 3.32 | 1.313 | 0.743, 5.89 | 0.014 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.70 | 0.929 | -0.125, 3.52 | 0.076 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.40 | 1.262 | -3.88, 1.07 | 0.274 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.078 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 28.1 | 1.557 | 25.0, 31.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.75 | 2.219 | -6.10, 2.59 | 0.432 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.457 | 1.330 | -2.15, 3.06 | 0.733 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.291 | 1.805 | -3.83, 3.25 | 0.873 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.7 | 0.837 | 12.0, 15.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.35 | 1.192 | -0.982, 3.69 | 0.260 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.336 | 0.866 | -1.36, 2.03 | 0.701 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.294 | 1.177 | -2.01, 2.60 | 0.804 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.025 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 16.1 | 0.670 | 14.8, 17.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.972 | 0.955 | -0.900, 2.84 | 0.312 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.543 | 0.604 | -0.640, 1.73 | 0.375 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.704 | 0.820 | -2.31, 0.903 | 0.397 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.8 | 1.419 | 27.0, 32.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.33 | 2.022 | -1.64, 6.29 | 0.254 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.824 | 1.299 | -1.72, 3.37 | 0.530 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.331 | 1.763 | -3.79, 3.12 | 0.852 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.8 | 0.238 | 12.3, 13.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.250 | 0.339 | -0.914, 0.415 | 0.463 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.419 | 0.417 | -0.397, 1.24 | 0.322 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.195 | 0.572 | -1.32, 0.926 | 0.736 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.024 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.9 | 0.592 | 13.7, 16.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.056 | 0.844 | -1.60, 1.71 | 0.947 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.007 | 0.795 | -1.55, 1.57 | 0.993 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.158 | 1.084 | -2.28, 1.97 | 0.885 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.000 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.4 | 0.703 | 12.0, 14.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.163 | 1.002 | -1.80, 2.13 | 0.871 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.108 | 0.889 | -1.63, 1.85 | 0.904 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.035 | 1.209 | -2.41, 2.34 | 0.977 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.000 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 28.2 | 1.181 | 25.9, 30.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.219 | 1.682 | -3.08, 3.52 | 0.897 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.102 | 1.516 | -2.87, 3.07 | 0.947 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.191 | 2.064 | -4.24, 3.86 | 0.927 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.000 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 19.0 | 0.688 | 17.7, 20.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.940 | 0.980 | -0.981, 2.86 | 0.341 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.210 | 0.707 | -1.18, 1.60 | 0.768 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.939 | 0.960 | -2.82, 0.944 | 0.335 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.3 | 0.445 | 13.4, 15.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.644 | 0.634 | -0.599, 1.89 | 0.313 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.670 | 0.658 | -0.619, 1.96 | 0.314 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.848 | 0.898 | -2.61, 0.912 | 0.350 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 12.4 | 0.549 | 11.3, 13.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -2.02 | 0.783 | -3.55, -0.484 | 0.012 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.972 | 0.589 | -2.13, 0.183 | 0.108 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.53 | 0.801 | -0.035, 3.10 | 0.063 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.066 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.7 | 0.641 | 9.48, 12.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.31 | 0.913 | -3.10, 0.478 | 0.155 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.002 | 0.596 | -1.17, 1.17 | 0.998 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.839 | 0.808 | -2.42, 0.745 | 0.306 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.050 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.6 | 0.656 | 9.36, 11.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.71 | 0.935 | -3.54, 0.124 | 0.072 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.317 | 0.645 | -1.58, 0.947 | 0.626 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.361 | 0.876 | -2.08, 1.35 | 0.682 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.060 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.79 | 0.684 | 7.45, 10.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.915 | 0.975 | -2.83, 0.995 | 0.351 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.830 | 0.607 | -0.359, 2.02 | 0.180 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.60 | 0.823 | -3.21, 0.013 | 0.060 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.040 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 30.2 | 1.832 | 26.6, 33.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -3.93 | 2.610 | -9.05, 1.18 | 0.136 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.593 | 1.531 | -2.41, 3.59 | 0.701 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.87 | 2.077 | -6.95, 1.20 | 0.175 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.056 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.30) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.18 (95% CI [2.76, 3.59], t(94) = 14.95, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.57], t(94) = -0.08, p = 0.934; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.98], t(94) = 0.91, p = 0.362; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.79])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.98], t(94) = 0.14, p = 0.892; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.79])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.45) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.76 (95% CI [16.84, 18.69], t(94) = 37.80, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-1.02, 1.61], t(94) = 0.44, p = 0.659; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.59])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-1.41, 1.28], t(94) = -0.09, p = 0.929; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.47])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-1.33, 2.34], t(94) = 0.54, p = 0.591; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.86])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.56 (95% CI [27.86, 31.26], t(94) = 34.05, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.41, 95% CI [-1.01, 3.84], t(94) = 1.14, p = 0.254; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.76])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-1.37, 2.49], t(94) = 0.57, p = 0.570; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.49])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-2.69, 2.55], t(94) = -0.06, p = 0.955; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.50])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.85 (95% CI [11.18, 12.52], t(94) = 34.58, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.32], t(94) = 0.74, p = 0.462; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.66])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.82, 95% CI [-1.52, -0.12], t(94) = -2.29, p = 0.022; Std. beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-0.76, -0.06])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.60], t(94) = 1.32, p = 0.187; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.80])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.41 (95% CI [16.34, 18.49], t(94) = 31.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-1.40, 1.67], t(94) = 0.17, p = 0.864; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.52])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.83, 95% CI [-2.06, 0.39], t(94) = -1.33, p = 0.184; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.12])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.41, 95% CI [-0.26, 3.08], t(94) = 1.66, p = 0.098; Std. beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.96])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.88 (95% CI [11.94, 13.83], t(94) = 26.65, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.72, 1.98], t(94) = 0.92, p = 0.358; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.68])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.64, 1.18], t(94) = 0.59, p = 0.555; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.40])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.54, 1.93], t(94) = 1.10, p = 0.273; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.66])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.44 (95% CI [9.70, 11.18], t(94) = 27.64, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.90, 95% CI [-1.95, 0.16], t(94) = -1.66, p = 0.096; Std. beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.07])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.50, 0.60], t(94) = -0.84, p = 0.403; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.23, 95% CI [-0.20, 2.67], t(94) = 1.69, p = 0.091; Std. beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.09, 1.21])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.88) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.91e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.26 (95% CI [27.91, 34.62], t(94) = 18.27, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.60, 95% CI [-6.38, 3.18], t(94) = -0.66, p = 0.512; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.84, 95% CI [-3.33, 1.64], t(94) = -0.66, p = 0.507; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.16])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-3.28, 3.46], t(94) = 0.05, p = 0.960; Std. beta = 8.49e-03, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.34])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.32 (95% CI [20.69, 23.95], t(94) = 26.83, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 9.80e-03, 95% CI [-2.31, 2.33], t(94) = 8.27e-03, p = 0.993; Std. beta = 2.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-1.48, 1.28], t(94) = -0.14, p = 0.887; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-3.10, 0.65], t(94) = -1.28, p = 0.200; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.13])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.09 (95% CI [23.08, 27.10], t(94) = 24.44, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-1.95, 3.78], t(94) = 0.62, p = 0.533; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.65])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.14, 95% CI [-3.11, 0.83], t(94) = -1.13, p = 0.257; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.14])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-2.20, 3.16], t(94) = 0.35, p = 0.726; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.54])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.97 (95% CI [16.62, 21.32], t(94) = 15.82, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.09, 95% CI [-0.26, 6.44], t(94) = 1.81, p = 0.071; Std. beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.91])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-1.70, 3.74], t(94) = 0.73, p = 0.463; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.53])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.86, 95% CI [-5.56, 1.84], t(94) = -0.99, p = 0.324; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.74 (95% CI [9.46, 12.01], t(94) = 16.49, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-0.95, 2.69], t(94) = 0.94, p = 0.348; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.72])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.48, 2.02], t(94) = 1.21, p = 0.226; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.54])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.37, 95% CI [-3.07, 0.33], t(94) = -1.58, p = 0.115; Std. beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-0.82, 0.09])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.94 (95% CI [13.14, 16.75], t(94) = 16.22, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-3.09, 2.06], t(94) = -0.39, p = 0.694; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.38])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.22, 95% CI [-0.88, 3.31], t(94) = 1.14, p = 0.255; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.62])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.44, 95% CI [-4.29, 1.41], t(94) = -0.99, p = 0.322; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.50e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.53 (95% CI [19.43, 23.63], t(94) = 20.13, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-2.00, 3.97], t(94) = 0.65, p = 0.518; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.64])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-1.31, 3.31], t(94) = 0.85, p = 0.397; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.53])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.21, 95% CI [-5.36, 0.93], t(94) = -1.38, p = 0.168; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.15])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.21 (95% CI [14.71, 17.70], t(94) = 21.21, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-1.37, 2.90], t(94) = 0.70, p = 0.483; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.66])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.92, 2.04], t(94) = 0.74, p = 0.461; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.46])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-1.91, 2.12], t(94) = 0.10, p = 0.920; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.48])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.24 (95% CI [12.25, 14.22], t(94) = 26.36, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.52, 2.29], t(94) = 1.24, p = 0.216; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.78])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.50, 0.74], t(94) = -0.66, p = 0.507; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-1.35, 1.71], t(94) = 0.23, p = 0.819; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.58])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.62 (95% CI [15.63, 17.61], t(94) = 32.91, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.29, 95% CI [-0.12, 2.70], t(94) = 1.79, p = 0.073; Std. beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.90])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.42, 1.72], t(94) = 1.19, p = 0.236; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.57])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-2.03, 0.88], t(94) = -0.77, p = 0.441; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.09. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.79 (95% CI [10.76, 12.83], t(94) = 22.37, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.02, 95% CI [0.55, 3.50], t(94) = 2.69, p = 0.007; Std. beta = 0.64, 95% CI [0.17, 1.10])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.12, 95% CI [-1.84e-03, 2.25], t(94) = 1.96, p = 0.050; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-5.81e-04, 0.71])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.92, 95% CI [-2.45, 0.61], t(94) = -1.18, p = 0.238; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.77, 0.19])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.08. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.41 (95% CI [26.61, 30.22], t(94) = 30.84, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.32, 95% CI [0.74, 5.89], t(94) = 2.53, p = 0.012; Std. beta = 0.59, 95% CI [0.13, 1.05])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.70, 95% CI [-0.12, 3.52], t(94) = 1.83, p = 0.068; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.63])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.40, 95% CI [-3.88, 1.07], t(94) = -1.11, p = 0.266; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.19])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.09 (95% CI [25.04, 31.14], t(94) = 18.04, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.75, 95% CI [-6.10, 2.59], t(94) = -0.79, p = 0.429; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.28])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-2.15, 3.06], t(94) = 0.34, p = 0.731; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-3.83, 3.25], t(94) = -0.16, p = 0.872; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.35])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.68 (95% CI [12.04, 15.32], t(94) = 16.35, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.35, 95% CI [-0.98, 3.69], t(94) = 1.14, p = 0.256; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.76])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-1.36, 2.03], t(94) = 0.39, p = 0.698; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.42])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-2.01, 2.60], t(94) = 0.25, p = 0.803; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.54])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.09 (95% CI [14.77, 17.40], t(94) = 24.00, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.90, 2.84], t(94) = 1.02, p = 0.309; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.74])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.64, 1.73], t(94) = 0.90, p = 0.368; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.45])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.70, 95% CI [-2.31, 0.90], t(94) = -0.86, p = 0.391; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.24])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.76 (95% CI [26.98, 32.55], t(94) = 20.98, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.33, 95% CI [-1.64, 6.29], t(94) = 1.15, p = 0.250; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.77])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.82, 95% CI [-1.72, 3.37], t(94) = 0.63, p = 0.526; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-3.79, 3.12], t(94) = -0.19, p = 0.851; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is weak (conditional R2 = 0.12) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.76 (95% CI [12.30, 13.23], t(94) = 53.66, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.91, 0.41], t(94) = -0.74, p = 0.462; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.24], t(94) = 1.01, p = 0.314; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.89])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.32, 0.93], t(94) = -0.34, p = 0.733; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.95, 0.67])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.24e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.85 (95% CI [13.69, 16.01], t(94) = 25.07, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-1.60, 1.71], t(94) = 0.07, p = 0.947; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 7.08e-03, 95% CI [-1.55, 1.57], t(94) = 8.90e-03, p = 0.993; Std. beta = 2.09e-03, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.46])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-2.28, 1.97], t(94) = -0.15, p = 0.884; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.58])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.76e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.38 (95% CI [12.00, 14.76], t(94) = 19.03, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.80, 2.13], t(94) = 0.16, p = 0.871; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.53])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-1.63, 1.85], t(94) = 0.12, p = 0.903; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.46])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-2.41, 2.34], t(94) = -0.03, p = 0.977; Std. beta = -8.58e-03, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.58])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.73e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.24 (95% CI [25.92, 30.55], t(94) = 23.92, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-3.08, 3.52], t(94) = 0.13, p = 0.896; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.52])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-2.87, 3.07], t(94) = 0.07, p = 0.946; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.45])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-4.24, 3.86], t(94) = -0.09, p = 0.926; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.57])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.03 (95% CI [17.68, 20.38], t(94) = 27.66, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.98, 2.86], t(94) = 0.96, p = 0.338; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.71])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-1.18, 1.60], t(94) = 0.30, p = 0.766; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.40])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.94, 95% CI [-2.82, 0.94], t(94) = -0.98, p = 0.328; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.24])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.43) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.26 (95% CI [13.39, 15.14], t(94) = 32.04, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.89], t(94) = 1.02, p = 0.310; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.73])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-0.62, 1.96], t(94) = 1.02, p = 0.309; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.76])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.85, 95% CI [-2.61, 0.91], t(94) = -0.94, p = 0.345; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.35])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.38 (95% CI [11.31, 13.46], t(94) = 22.54, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.02, 95% CI [-3.55, -0.48], t(94) = -2.58, p = 0.010; Std. beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-1.08, -0.15])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.97, 95% CI [-2.13, 0.18], t(94) = -1.65, p = 0.099; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.06])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.53, 95% CI [-0.03, 3.10], t(94) = 1.92, p = 0.055; Std. beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.95])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.74 (95% CI [9.48, 11.99], t(94) = 16.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.31, 95% CI [-3.10, 0.48], t(94) = -1.44, p = 0.151; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.12])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.71e-03, 95% CI [-1.17, 1.17], t(94) = -2.87e-03, p = 0.998; Std. beta = -4.43e-04, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.84, 95% CI [-2.42, 0.75], t(94) = -1.04, p = 0.299; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.19])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.65 (95% CI [9.36, 11.93], t(94) = 16.23, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.71, 95% CI [-3.54, 0.12], t(94) = -1.83, p = 0.068; Std. beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-0.90, 0.03])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-1.58, 0.95], t(94) = -0.49, p = 0.623; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-2.08, 1.35], t(94) = -0.41, p = 0.680; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.34])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.79 (95% CI [7.45, 10.14], t(94) = 12.85, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.92, 95% CI [-2.83, 1.00], t(94) = -0.94, p = 0.348; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-0.36, 2.02], t(94) = 1.37, p = 0.171; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.51])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.60, 95% CI [-3.21, 0.01], t(94) = -1.94, p = 0.052; Std. beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-0.81, 3.15e-03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.18 (95% CI [26.59, 33.77], t(94) = 16.48, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.93, 95% CI [-9.05, 1.18], t(94) = -1.51, p = 0.132; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.82, 0.11])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-2.41, 3.59], t(94) = 0.39, p = 0.699; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.87, 95% CI [-6.95, 1.20], t(94) = -1.38, p = 0.167; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.11])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 327.883 | 335.698 | -160.941 | 321.883 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 331.613 | 347.244 | -159.806 | 319.613 | 2.270 | 3 | 0.518 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 481.181 | 488.997 | -237.591 | 475.181 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 486.117 | 501.748 | -237.058 | 474.117 | 1.064 | 3 | 0.786 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 590.782 | 598.598 | -292.391 | 584.782 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 594.696 | 610.327 | -291.348 | 582.696 | 2.086 | 3 | 0.555 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 404.128 | 411.944 | -199.064 | 398.128 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 403.966 | 419.597 | -195.983 | 391.966 | 6.162 | 3 | 0.104 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 500.557 | 508.373 | -247.279 | 494.557 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 503.283 | 518.914 | -245.641 | 491.283 | 3.275 | 3 | 0.351 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 468.586 | 476.402 | -231.293 | 462.586 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 467.532 | 483.163 | -227.766 | 455.532 | 7.054 | 3 | 0.070 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 439.409 | 447.224 | -216.704 | 433.409 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 440.985 | 456.616 | -214.493 | 428.985 | 4.424 | 3 | 0.219 |
symptom | null | 3 | 699.414 | 707.230 | -346.707 | 693.414 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 704.041 | 719.672 | -346.020 | 692.041 | 1.374 | 3 | 0.712 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 566.535 | 574.350 | -280.267 | 560.535 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 568.234 | 583.865 | -278.117 | 556.234 | 4.301 | 3 | 0.231 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 615.728 | 623.544 | -304.864 | 609.728 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 619.452 | 635.083 | -303.726 | 607.452 | 2.277 | 3 | 0.517 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 658.174 | 665.989 | -326.087 | 652.174 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 660.604 | 676.235 | -324.302 | 648.604 | 3.569 | 3 | 0.312 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 525.231 | 533.047 | -259.616 | 519.231 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 528.342 | 543.973 | -258.171 | 516.342 | 2.889 | 3 | 0.409 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 603.923 | 611.738 | -298.961 | 597.923 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 608.022 | 623.653 | -298.011 | 596.022 | 1.901 | 3 | 0.593 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 630.963 | 638.778 | -312.481 | 624.963 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 634.873 | 650.504 | -311.437 | 622.873 | 2.089 | 3 | 0.554 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 557.136 | 564.951 | -275.568 | 551.136 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 561.009 | 576.641 | -274.505 | 549.009 | 2.126 | 3 | 0.547 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 482.111 | 489.926 | -238.055 | 476.111 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 485.649 | 501.280 | -236.824 | 473.649 | 2.462 | 3 | 0.482 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 482.026 | 489.841 | -238.013 | 476.026 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 483.723 | 499.354 | -235.862 | 471.723 | 4.302 | 3 | 0.231 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 496.750 | 504.565 | -245.375 | 490.750 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 492.638 | 508.269 | -240.319 | 480.638 | 10.111 | 3 | 0.018 |
els | null | 3 | 602.533 | 610.348 | -298.266 | 596.533 | |||
els | random | 6 | 599.576 | 615.207 | -293.788 | 587.576 | 8.957 | 3 | 0.030 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 689.090 | 696.906 | -341.545 | 683.090 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 694.221 | 709.852 | -341.110 | 682.221 | 0.870 | 3 | 0.833 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 578.324 | 586.140 | -286.162 | 572.324 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 581.878 | 597.509 | -284.939 | 569.878 | 2.446 | 3 | 0.485 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 524.633 | 532.449 | -259.317 | 518.633 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 528.953 | 544.584 | -258.476 | 516.953 | 1.680 | 3 | 0.641 |
shs | null | 3 | 675.878 | 683.694 | -334.939 | 669.878 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 679.924 | 695.555 | -333.962 | 667.924 | 1.954 | 3 | 0.582 |
esteem | null | 3 | 353.320 | 361.136 | -173.660 | 347.320 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 356.862 | 372.493 | -172.431 | 344.862 | 2.458 | 3 | 0.483 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 522.061 | 529.876 | -258.030 | 516.061 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 528.016 | 543.647 | -258.008 | 516.016 | 0.044 | 3 | 0.998 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 553.026 | 560.842 | -273.513 | 547.026 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 558.973 | 574.604 | -273.487 | 546.973 | 0.053 | 3 | 0.997 |
mlq | null | 3 | 657.495 | 665.310 | -325.747 | 651.495 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 663.475 | 679.106 | -325.738 | 651.475 | 0.019 | 3 | 0.999 |
empower | null | 3 | 538.252 | 546.068 | -266.126 | 532.252 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 542.329 | 557.960 | -265.165 | 530.329 | 1.923 | 3 | 0.589 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 471.522 | 479.338 | -232.761 | 465.522 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 475.857 | 491.488 | -231.929 | 463.857 | 1.665 | 3 | 0.645 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 502.341 | 510.156 | -248.170 | 496.341 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 499.914 | 515.545 | -243.957 | 487.914 | 8.427 | 3 | 0.038 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 521.383 | 529.199 | -257.692 | 515.383 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 521.895 | 537.526 | -254.948 | 509.895 | 5.488 | 3 | 0.139 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 529.737 | 537.552 | -261.868 | 523.737 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 530.066 | 545.697 | -259.033 | 518.066 | 5.671 | 3 | 0.129 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 531.752 | 539.568 | -262.876 | 525.752 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 532.049 | 547.680 | -260.024 | 520.049 | 5.704 | 3 | 0.127 |
sss | null | 3 | 725.546 | 733.362 | -359.773 | 719.546 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 725.283 | 740.914 | -356.641 | 713.283 | 6.263 | 3 | 0.099 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 34 | 3.18 ± 1.24 | 33 | 3.15 ± 1.24 | 0.934 | 0.024 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 15 | 3.49 ± 1.23 | -0.298 | 18 | 3.53 ± 1.23 | -0.359 | 0.929 | -0.037 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 34 | 17.76 ± 2.74 | 33 | 18.06 ± 2.74 | 0.660 | -0.145 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 15 | 17.70 ± 2.62 | 0.030 | 18 | 18.50 ± 2.64 | -0.216 | 0.387 | -0.390 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 34 | 29.56 ± 5.06 | 33 | 30.97 ± 5.06 | 0.258 | -0.501 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 15 | 30.12 ± 4.36 | -0.198 | 18 | 31.45 ± 4.50 | -0.172 | 0.390 | -0.474 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 34 | 11.85 ± 2.00 | 33 | 12.21 ± 2.00 | 0.464 | -0.353 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 15 | 11.03 ± 1.67 | 0.806 | 18 | 12.03 ± 1.74 | 0.175 | 0.096 | -0.983 |
ras_goal | 1st | 34 | 17.41 ± 3.20 | 33 | 17.55 ± 3.20 | 0.865 | -0.075 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 15 | 16.58 ± 2.76 | 0.464 | 18 | 18.12 ± 2.85 | -0.321 | 0.119 | -0.859 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 34 | 12.88 ± 2.82 | 33 | 13.52 ± 2.82 | 0.361 | -0.483 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 15 | 13.16 ± 2.29 | -0.209 | 18 | 14.48 ± 2.40 | -0.736 | 0.109 | -1.009 |
ras_domination | 1st | 34 | 10.44 ± 2.20 | 33 | 9.55 ± 2.20 | 0.100 | 0.564 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 15 | 9.99 ± 2.08 | 0.283 | 18 | 10.33 ± 2.10 | -0.495 | 0.645 | -0.213 |
symptom | 1st | 34 | 31.26 ± 9.98 | 33 | 29.67 ± 9.98 | 0.514 | 0.452 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 15 | 30.42 ± 7.56 | 0.238 | 18 | 28.91 ± 8.07 | 0.214 | 0.580 | 0.428 |
slof_work | 1st | 34 | 22.32 ± 4.85 | 33 | 22.33 ± 4.85 | 0.993 | -0.005 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 15 | 22.22 ± 3.80 | 0.051 | 18 | 21.01 ± 4.02 | 0.671 | 0.376 | 0.615 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 34 | 25.09 ± 5.98 | 33 | 26.00 ± 5.98 | 0.535 | -0.320 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 15 | 23.95 ± 4.90 | 0.400 | 18 | 25.34 ± 5.12 | 0.232 | 0.429 | -0.488 |
satisfaction | 1st | 34 | 18.97 ± 6.99 | 33 | 22.06 ± 6.99 | 0.075 | -0.775 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 15 | 19.99 ± 6.07 | -0.255 | 18 | 21.22 ± 6.26 | 0.212 | 0.569 | -0.308 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 34 | 10.74 ± 3.80 | 33 | 11.61 ± 3.80 | 0.351 | -0.482 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 15 | 11.51 ± 3.11 | -0.427 | 18 | 11.01 ± 3.25 | 0.330 | 0.655 | 0.275 |
mhc_social | 1st | 34 | 14.94 ± 5.37 | 33 | 14.42 ± 5.37 | 0.695 | 0.168 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 15 | 16.16 ± 4.67 | -0.396 | 18 | 14.20 ± 4.81 | 0.072 | 0.240 | 0.637 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 34 | 21.53 ± 6.24 | 33 | 22.52 ± 6.24 | 0.520 | -0.292 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 15 | 22.53 ± 5.32 | -0.296 | 18 | 21.30 ± 5.50 | 0.359 | 0.518 | 0.363 |
resilisnce | 1st | 34 | 16.21 ± 4.46 | 33 | 16.97 ± 4.46 | 0.485 | -0.357 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 15 | 16.76 ± 3.66 | -0.260 | 18 | 17.63 ± 3.82 | -0.309 | 0.508 | -0.405 |
social_provision | 1st | 34 | 13.24 ± 2.93 | 33 | 14.12 ± 2.93 | 0.219 | -0.539 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 15 | 12.85 ± 2.53 | 0.232 | 18 | 13.92 ± 2.61 | 0.123 | 0.238 | -0.648 |
els_value_living | 1st | 34 | 16.62 ± 2.94 | 33 | 17.91 ± 2.94 | 0.077 | -0.827 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 15 | 17.27 ± 2.50 | -0.416 | 18 | 17.98 ± 2.59 | -0.048 | 0.420 | -0.459 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 34 | 11.79 ± 3.07 | 33 | 13.82 ± 3.07 | 0.009 | -1.234 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 15 | 12.92 ± 2.61 | -0.685 | 18 | 14.02 ± 2.70 | -0.124 | 0.238 | -0.672 |
els | 1st | 34 | 28.41 ± 5.37 | 33 | 31.73 ± 5.37 | 0.014 | -1.258 | ||
els | 2nd | 15 | 30.11 ± 4.44 | -0.644 | 18 | 32.02 ± 4.63 | -0.112 | 0.230 | -0.726 |
social_connect | 1st | 34 | 28.09 ± 9.08 | 33 | 26.33 ± 9.08 | 0.432 | 0.470 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 15 | 28.54 ± 7.13 | -0.122 | 18 | 26.50 ± 7.53 | -0.044 | 0.426 | 0.548 |
shs_agency | 1st | 34 | 13.68 ± 4.88 | 33 | 15.03 ± 4.88 | 0.260 | -0.550 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 15 | 14.01 ± 4.07 | -0.136 | 18 | 15.66 ± 4.23 | -0.256 | 0.258 | -0.669 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 34 | 16.09 ± 3.91 | 33 | 17.06 ± 3.91 | 0.312 | -0.572 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 15 | 16.63 ± 3.12 | -0.320 | 18 | 16.90 ± 3.28 | 0.094 | 0.810 | -0.158 |
shs | 1st | 34 | 29.76 ± 8.27 | 33 | 32.09 ± 8.27 | 0.254 | -0.636 | ||
shs | 2nd | 15 | 30.59 ± 6.63 | -0.225 | 18 | 32.58 ± 6.97 | -0.135 | 0.402 | -0.546 |
esteem | 1st | 34 | 12.76 ± 1.39 | 33 | 12.52 ± 1.39 | 0.463 | 0.189 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 15 | 13.18 ± 1.41 | -0.318 | 18 | 12.74 ± 1.40 | -0.170 | 0.368 | 0.337 |
mlq_search | 1st | 34 | 14.85 ± 3.45 | 33 | 14.91 ± 3.45 | 0.947 | -0.024 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 15 | 14.86 ± 3.19 | -0.003 | 18 | 14.76 ± 3.24 | 0.065 | 0.928 | 0.044 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 34 | 13.38 ± 4.10 | 33 | 13.55 ± 4.10 | 0.871 | -0.063 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 15 | 13.49 ± 3.69 | -0.042 | 18 | 13.62 ± 3.77 | -0.028 | 0.922 | -0.050 |
mlq | 1st | 34 | 28.24 ± 6.88 | 33 | 28.45 ± 6.88 | 0.897 | -0.050 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 15 | 28.34 ± 6.23 | -0.023 | 18 | 28.37 ± 6.36 | 0.020 | 0.990 | -0.007 |
empower | 1st | 34 | 19.03 ± 4.01 | 33 | 19.97 ± 4.01 | 0.341 | -0.468 | ||
empower | 2nd | 15 | 19.24 ± 3.34 | -0.105 | 18 | 19.24 ± 3.47 | 0.363 | 0.999 | -0.001 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 34 | 14.26 ± 2.60 | 33 | 14.91 ± 2.60 | 0.313 | -0.328 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 15 | 14.93 ± 2.49 | -0.341 | 18 | 14.73 ± 2.51 | 0.091 | 0.816 | 0.104 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 34 | 12.38 ± 3.20 | 33 | 10.36 ± 3.20 | 0.012 | 1.202 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 15 | 11.41 ± 2.70 | 0.579 | 18 | 10.93 ± 2.80 | -0.335 | 0.616 | 0.288 |
sss_affective | 1st | 34 | 10.74 ± 3.74 | 33 | 9.42 ± 3.74 | 0.155 | 0.781 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 15 | 10.73 ± 3.01 | 0.001 | 18 | 8.58 ± 3.16 | 0.501 | 0.048 | 1.281 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 34 | 10.65 ± 3.83 | 33 | 8.94 ± 3.83 | 0.072 | 0.936 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 15 | 10.33 ± 3.13 | 0.174 | 18 | 8.26 ± 3.27 | 0.372 | 0.067 | 1.134 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 34 | 8.79 ± 3.99 | 33 | 7.88 ± 3.99 | 0.351 | 0.537 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 15 | 9.62 ± 3.17 | -0.487 | 18 | 7.11 ± 3.34 | 0.452 | 0.029 | 1.475 |
sss | 1st | 34 | 30.18 ± 10.68 | 33 | 26.24 ± 10.68 | 0.136 | 0.917 | ||
sss | 2nd | 15 | 30.77 ± 8.34 | -0.138 | 18 | 23.96 ± 8.82 | 0.532 | 0.025 | 1.586 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(91.18) = -0.08, p = 0.934, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.63 to 0.58)
2st
t(94.67) = 0.09, p = 0.929, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.81 to 0.89)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(85.85) = 0.44, p = 0.660, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.04 to 1.63)
2st
t(94.08) = 0.87, p = 0.387, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-1.03 to 2.62)
ras_confidence
1st
t(76.00) = 1.14, p = 0.258, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-1.05 to 3.87)
2st
t(95.76) = 0.86, p = 0.390, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-1.73 to 4.41)
ras_willingness
1st
t(74.05) = 0.74, p = 0.464, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.33)
2st
t(96.00) = 1.68, p = 0.096, Cohen d = -0.98, 95% CI (-0.18 to 2.18)
ras_goal
1st
t(76.19) = 0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.42 to 1.69)
2st
t(95.72) = 1.57, p = 0.119, Cohen d = -0.86, 95% CI (-0.40 to 3.49)
ras_reliance
1st
t(72.42) = 0.92, p = 0.361, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.74 to 2.01)
2st
t(95.63) = 1.62, p = 0.109, Cohen d = -1.01, 95% CI (-0.30 to 2.95)
ras_domination
1st
t(84.35) = -1.66, p = 0.100, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-1.97 to 0.17)
2st
t(94.12) = 0.46, p = 0.645, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.11 to 1.79)
symptom
1st
t(69.13) = -0.66, p = 0.514, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-6.46 to 3.27)
2st
t(90.70) = -0.55, p = 0.580, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-6.93 to 3.90)
slof_work
1st
t(70.56) = 0.01, p = 0.993, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-2.35 to 2.37)
2st
t(93.84) = -0.89, p = 0.376, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-3.92 to 1.49)
slof_relationship
1st
t(72.80) = 0.62, p = 0.535, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-2.00 to 3.83)
2st
t(95.79) = 0.80, p = 0.429, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-2.08 to 4.86)
satisfaction
1st
t(76.58) = 1.81, p = 0.075, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (-0.31 to 6.49)
2st
t(95.63) = 0.57, p = 0.569, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-3.04 to 5.50)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(72.79) = 0.94, p = 0.351, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.98 to 2.72)
2st
t(95.79) = -0.45, p = 0.655, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-2.70 to 1.70)
mhc_social
1st
t(76.66) = -0.39, p = 0.695, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-3.13 to 2.10)
2st
t(95.61) = -1.18, p = 0.240, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-5.24 to 1.33)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(75.32) = 0.65, p = 0.520, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-2.05 to 4.02)
2st
t(95.89) = -0.65, p = 0.518, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-4.98 to 2.53)
resilisnce
1st
t(72.96) = 0.70, p = 0.485, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-1.41 to 2.93)
2st
t(95.84) = 0.66, p = 0.508, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-1.72 to 3.46)
social_provision
1st
t(76.19) = 1.24, p = 0.219, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.54 to 2.31)
2st
t(95.72) = 1.19, p = 0.238, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-0.72 to 2.85)
els_value_living
1st
t(74.89) = 1.79, p = 0.077, Cohen d = -0.83, 95% CI (-0.14 to 2.72)
2st
t(95.95) = 0.81, p = 0.420, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-1.04 to 2.48)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(75.01) = 2.69, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -1.23, 95% CI (0.53 to 3.52)
2st
t(95.94) = 1.19, p = 0.238, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (-0.74 to 2.94)
els
1st
t(73.33) = 2.53, p = 0.014, Cohen d = -1.26, 95% CI (0.70 to 5.93)
2st
t(95.93) = 1.21, p = 0.230, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (-1.23 to 5.05)
social_connect
1st
t(70.67) = -0.79, p = 0.432, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-6.18 to 2.67)
2st
t(94.02) = -0.80, p = 0.426, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-7.13 to 3.03)
shs_agency
1st
t(73.86) = 1.14, p = 0.260, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-1.02 to 3.73)
2st
t(95.99) = 1.14, p = 0.258, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (-1.23 to 4.52)
shs_pathway
1st
t(71.40) = 1.02, p = 0.312, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.93 to 2.88)
2st
t(94.90) = 0.24, p = 0.810, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.95 to 2.48)
shs
1st
t(71.64) = 1.15, p = 0.254, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (-1.70 to 6.36)
2st
t(95.12) = 0.84, p = 0.402, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-2.71 to 6.70)
esteem
1st
t(95.45) = -0.74, p = 0.463, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-0.92 to 0.42)
2st
t(95.81) = -0.90, p = 0.368, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-1.42 to 0.53)
mlq_search
1st
t(81.83) = 0.07, p = 0.947, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.62 to 1.74)
2st
t(94.39) = -0.09, p = 0.928, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-2.33 to 2.13)
mlq_presence
1st
t(79.42) = 0.16, p = 0.871, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.83 to 2.16)
2st
t(94.89) = 0.10, p = 0.922, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-2.46 to 2.71)
mlq
1st
t(80.04) = 0.13, p = 0.897, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-3.13 to 3.57)
2st
t(94.75) = 0.01, p = 0.990, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-4.34 to 4.40)
empower
1st
t(73.70) = 0.96, p = 0.341, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-1.01 to 2.89)
2st
t(95.98) = 0.00, p = 0.999, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-2.36 to 2.36)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(86.46) = 1.02, p = 0.313, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.91)
2st
t(94.09) = -0.23, p = 0.816, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.94 to 1.53)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(74.63) = -2.58, p = 0.012, Cohen d = 1.20, 95% CI (-3.58 to -0.46)
2st
t(95.98) = -0.50, p = 0.616, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-2.39 to 1.42)
sss_affective
1st
t(71.88) = -1.44, p = 0.155, Cohen d = 0.78, 95% CI (-3.13 to 0.51)
2st
t(95.31) = -2.00, p = 0.048, Cohen d = 1.28, 95% CI (-4.29 to -0.02)
sss_behavior
1st
t(72.83) = -1.83, p = 0.072, Cohen d = 0.94, 95% CI (-3.57 to 0.16)
2st
t(95.80) = -1.85, p = 0.067, Cohen d = 1.13, 95% CI (-4.29 to 0.15)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(71.17) = -0.94, p = 0.351, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-2.86 to 1.03)
2st
t(94.66) = -2.22, p = 0.029, Cohen d = 1.48, 95% CI (-4.77 to -0.26)
sss
1st
t(70.40) = -1.51, p = 0.136, Cohen d = 0.92, 95% CI (-9.14 to 1.27)
2st
t(93.59) = -2.27, p = 0.025, Cohen d = 1.59, 95% CI (-12.75 to -0.86)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(45.75) = 1.16, p = 0.501, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.02)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(41.75) = 0.69, p = 0.992, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.86 to 1.74)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(36.21) = 0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.36 to 2.33)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(35.24) = -0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-0.85 to 0.49)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(36.31) = 0.99, p = 0.654, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.75)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(34.45) = 2.25, p = 0.061, Cohen d = -0.74, 95% CI (0.10 to 1.83)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(40.80) = 1.57, p = 0.250, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.23 to 1.80)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(32.90) = -0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-3.13 to 1.61)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(33.57) = -2.04, p = 0.098, Cohen d = 0.67, 95% CI (-2.64 to -0.01)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(34.63) = -0.71, p = 0.963, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-2.55 to 1.23)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(36.50) = -0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-3.45 to 1.76)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(34.63) = -1.01, p = 0.638, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.79 to 0.60)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(36.54) = -0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-2.23 to 1.79)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(35.87) = -1.11, p = 0.550, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-3.43 to 1.00)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(34.71) = 0.95, p = 0.701, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.76 to 2.08)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(36.30) = -0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.87)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(35.66) = 0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.95 to 1.10)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(35.72) = 0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.88 to 1.28)
els
1st vs 2st
t(34.89) = 0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.45 to 2.04)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(33.62) = 0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-2.32 to 2.65)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(35.15) = 0.79, p = 0.873, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.99 to 2.25)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(33.97) = -0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.29 to 0.97)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(34.08) = 0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.94 to 2.92)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(51.38) = 0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.57 to 1.02)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(39.31) = -0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.65 to 1.35)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(37.98) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.60 to 1.75)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(38.32) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-2.94 to 2.77)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(35.07) = -1.12, p = 0.544, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-2.05 to 0.60)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(42.15) = -0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.42 to 1.07)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(35.53) = 1.03, p = 0.618, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.54 to 1.67)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(34.19) = -1.53, p = 0.269, Cohen d = 0.50, 95% CI (-1.96 to 0.27)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(34.65) = -1.14, p = 0.525, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.89 to 0.53)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(33.86) = -1.38, p = 0.354, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-1.91 to 0.36)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(33.49) = -1.62, p = 0.229, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-5.15 to 0.58)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(49.92) = 0.90, p = 0.744, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.38 to 1.01)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(44.69) = -0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.46 to 1.34)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(37.54) = 0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.45 to 2.57)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(36.31) = -2.28, p = 0.057, Cohen d = 0.81, 95% CI (-1.55 to -0.09)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(37.66) = -1.32, p = 0.390, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-2.11 to 0.44)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(35.30) = 0.59, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.67 to 1.22)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(43.45) = -0.83, p = 0.825, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.54 to 0.64)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(33.35) = -0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-3.43 to 1.75)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(34.19) = -0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.54 to 1.34)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(35.53) = -1.13, p = 0.535, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-3.19 to 0.91)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(37.91) = 0.73, p = 0.943, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.81 to 3.85)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(35.53) = 1.20, p = 0.474, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.07)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(37.96) = 1.13, p = 0.532, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.96 to 3.40)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(37.11) = 0.84, p = 0.812, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-1.41 to 3.41)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(35.63) = 0.73, p = 0.936, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.99 to 2.10)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(37.66) = -0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-1.55 to 0.79)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(36.84) = 1.18, p = 0.493, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.77)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(36.91) = 1.94, p = 0.119, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (-0.05 to 2.30)
els
1st vs 2st
t(35.86) = 1.82, p = 0.156, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (-0.20 to 3.59)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(34.26) = 0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.26 to 3.17)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(36.19) = 0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.10)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(34.69) = 0.90, p = 0.753, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.69 to 1.78)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(34.83) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.83 to 3.47)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(57.19) = 0.99, p = 0.649, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.43 to 1.26)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(41.53) = 0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-1.61 to 1.63)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(39.81) = 0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.70 to 1.92)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(40.24) = 0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-2.99 to 3.19)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(36.09) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.23 to 1.65)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(45.21) = 1.01, p = 0.639, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.67 to 2.01)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(36.67) = -1.64, p = 0.220, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-2.17 to 0.23)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(34.98) = -0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.22 to 1.21)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(35.56) = -0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.63 to 1.00)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(34.56) = 1.36, p = 0.364, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.41 to 2.07)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(34.10) = 0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-2.53 to 3.72)
Plot
